Generally, when monitoring adult sex offenders, surveillance functions are
performed by individuals from law enforcement, public safety, or community
supervision agencies; for juvenile sex offenders, trackers or public safety
officials employed by juvenile courts, juvenile justice agencies, or juvenile
supervision agencies may be utilized to augment the supervision activities
of juvenile officers. To ensure effective partnering and monitoring, surveillance
officers should be trained by specialized supervision officers and other professionals
on victimization issues, the etiology and dynamics of sex offending, and effective
sex offender management practices. Surveillance officers must also have a clear
understanding of the specific offense patterns and dynamic risk factors for
each offender for whom they have monitoring responsibility.

Surveillance officers should focus on developing productive working relationships
with offenders and their collaterals. This enables surveillance officers to
assess more thoroughly sex offenders’ engagement in treatment, compliance
with supervision, status and nature of significant relationships, potential
high risk factors or behaviors, access to victims, and effective or ineffective
use of coping skills (CSOM, 2002a, 2002b; Cumming & McGrath, 2000, 2005;
English, 1998; English et al., 1996, 2003; Hudson et al., 2002; Marques et
al., 2000; Pettett & Weirman, 1996; Scott, 1997). Hence, where utilized,
surveillance officers can play a critical role on sex offender case management
teams. Through immersion in the field of sex offender management and the day–to–day
activities of specific offenders, surveillance officers become well positioned
to identify concerns or problems and can subsequently alert supervision officers
and other team members to the need for intervention. Beyond identifying risks
posed by offenders, surveillance officers should also be expected and willing
to recognize and provide important information that reflects offenders’ progress
and successes (Cumming & McGrath, 2000, 2005).

Electronic Monitoring

The use of surveillance technologies, including electronic monitoring and
global positioning systems has recently become increasingly popular to enhance
the risk management efforts of supervision officers with sex offenders (see,
e.g., DeMichele, Payne, & Button, 2007; English et al., 2003; ICAOS, 2007;
Lyons, 2006; Schlank & Bidelman, 2001). More than half of states in the
U.S. have created policies or passed legislation that stipulates that electronic
monitoring can be used to manage these offenders (DeMichele et al., 2007; ICAOS,
2007).

Currently, however, there is a lack of research that demonstrates the impact
of electronic monitoring when used with sex offenders. To date, there have
only been limited efforts to examine the efficacy of electronic monitoring
with general criminal offenders, with the existing studies indicating that
it does not affect recidivism (see, e.g., Aos et al., 2006; Bonta, Wallace–Capretta, & Rooney,
2000; Renzema & Mayo–Wilson, 2005).

More research is needed to examine the impact of electronic monitoring with
sex offenders. In the meantime, if it is implemented, jurisdictions would be
well served to utilize the technology as a part of a larger, multidisciplinary,
and comprehensive approach to managing sex offenders in the community that
focuses both on monitoring their behavior and supporting their successful participation
in treatment. Because of the research that indicates that outcomes are enhanced
and recidivism is reduced when higher risk offenders with significant needs
receive more intensive services and interventions (see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta,
2007), electronic monitoring is, perhaps, most appropriately used with sex
offenders who are assessed to be more dangerous and likely to commit additional
crimes in the future.

For the purpose of enhancing existing community supervision practices, two
common types of polygraph examinations may be used: the single/specific issue
examination and the monitoring/maintenance examination. The single issue polygraph
examination may be required by the supervision officer when concerns about
specific high risk behaviors arise during the course of supervision. For more
general and periodic assessments of compliance with supervision conditions
and treatment expectations, the monitoring or maintenance polygraph examination
may be conducted. Included among the focus of inquiries are risk factors such
as victim access, substance abuse, use of pornography, or masturbation to deviant
sexual fantasies.

It should be noted, however, that the polygraph remains somewhat controversial.
Therefore, stakeholders should be fully aware of the limitations, caveats,
and potential risks and benefits of its use before making decisions about implementing
such technology, and should not make supervision–related decisions exclusively
based on polygraph examinations (ATSA, 2005; Blasingame, 1998; CSOM, 2000,
2002a).

Because of the potential impact of age, functioning, development, maturity,
and co–occurring behavioral health concerns on the reliability and validity
of polygraphy, questions remain about the use of the polygraph with juvenile
sex offenders (CSOM, 1999; Fanniff & Becker, 2006; Hunter & Lexier,
1998; Lane, 1997; NAPN, 1993; Worling, 1998). Despite these questions, its
use to enhance supervision and treatment practices with juvenile sex offenders
is increasing nationwide (McGrath et al., 2003). Consequently, it has been
suggested that, if used, polygraph examinations should be restricted to older
juveniles (i.e., 14 years of age or older) who are more developmentally stable,
and with the informed consent of the juvenile, parent/caregiver, and referral
source. Therefore, clear policies and procedures are necessary to ensure the
cautious and responsible use of such technology.